The Courage to be Disliked (Ichirō Kishimi, Fumitake Koga) (z-lib.org)

THE SECOND NIGHT:

All Problems Are Interpersonal
Relationship Problems

The young man was as good as his word. Exactly one week later, he returned to the

philosopher’s study. Truth be told, he’d felt the urge to rush back there only two or
three days after his first visit. He had turned things over in his mind very carefully,
and his doubts had turned to certainty. In short, teleology, the attributing of the
purpose of a given phenomenon, rather than its cause, was a sophistry, and the
existence of trauma was beyond question. People cannot simply forget the past, and
neither can they become free from it.

Today, the young man decided, he’d thoroughly dismantle this eccentric
philosopher’s theories and settle matters once and for all.

Why You Dislike Yourself

YOUTH: So after last time, I calmed myself down, focused, and thought things over.
And yet, I’ve got to say, I still can’t agree with your theories.

PHILOSOPHER: Oh? What do you find questionable about them?

YOUTH: Well, for instance, the other day I admitted that I dislike myself. No matter
what I do, I can’t find anything but shortcomings, and I can see no reason why I’d
start liking myself. But of course I still want to. You explain everything as having to
do with goals, but what kind of goal could I have here? I mean, what kind of
advantage could there be in my not liking myself? I can’t imagine there’d be a single
thing to gain from it.

PHILOSOPHER: I see. You feel that you don’t have any strong points, that you’ve got
nothing but shortcomings. Whatever the facts might be, that’s how you feel. In other
words, your self-esteem is extremely low. So the questions here, then, are why do you
feel so wretched? And, why do you view yourself with such low esteem?

YOUTH: Because that’s a fact—I really don’t have any strong points.

PHILOSOPHER: You’re wrong. You notice only your shortcomings because you’ve
resolved to not start liking yourself. In order to not like yourself, you don’t see your
strong points and focus only on your shortcomings. First, understand this point.

YOUTH: I have resolved to not start liking myself?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. To you, not liking yourself is a virtue.

YOUTH: Why? What for?

PHILOSOPHER: Perhaps this is something you should think about yourself. What sort
of shortcomings do you think you have?

YOUTH: I’m sure you have already noticed. First of all, there’s my personality. I don’t
have any self-confidence, and I’m always pessimistic about everything. And I guess
I’m too self-conscious, because I worry about what other people see, and then, I live
with a constant distrust of other people. I can never act naturally; there’s always
something theatrical about what I say and do. And it’s not just my personality—
there’s nothing to like about my face or my body, either.

PHILOSOPHER: When you go about listing your shortcomings like that, what kind of
mood does it put you in?

YOUTH: Wow, that’s nasty! An unpleasant mood, naturally. I’m sure that no one
would want to get involved with a guy as warped as me. If there were anyone this
wretched and bothersome in my vicinity, I’d keep my distance, too.

PHILOSOPHER: I see. Well, that settles it, then.

YOUTH: What do you mean?

PHILOSOPHER: It might be hard to understand from your own example, so I’ll use
another. I use this study for simple counseling sessions. It must have been quite a few
years ago, but there was a female student who came by. She sat right where you are
sitting now, in the same chair. Well, her concern was her fear of blushing. She told me
that she was always turning red whenever she was out in public, and that she would
do anything to rid herself of this. So I asked her, “Well, if you can cure it, what will
you want to do then?” And she said that there was a man she wanted. She secretly had
feelings for him but wasn’t ready to divulge them. Once her fear of blushing was
cured, she’d confess her desire to be with him.

YOUTH: Huh! All right, it sounds like the typical thing a female student would seek
counseling for. In order for her to confess her feelings for him, first she had to cure

her blushing problem.

PHILOSOPHER: But is that really the whole case? I have a different opinion. Why did
she get this fear of blushing? And why hadn’t it gotten better? Because she needed
that symptom of blushing.

YOUTH: What are you saying exactly? She was asking you to cure it, wasn’t she?

PHILOSOPHER: What do you think was the scariest thing to her, the thing she wanted
to avoid most of all? It was that the man would reject her, of course. The fact that her
unrequited love would negate everything for her, the very existence and possibility of
“I.” This aspect is deeply present in adolescent unrequited love. But as long as she has
a fear of blushing, she can go on thinking, I can’t be with him because I have this fear
of blushing. It could end without her ever working up the courage to confess her
feelings to him, and she could convince herself that he would reject her anyway. And
finally, she can live in the possibility that If only my fear of blushing had gotten better,
I could have . . .

YOUTH: Okay, so she fabricated that fear of blushing as an excuse for her own
inability to confess her feelings. Or maybe as a kind of insurance for when he rejected
her.

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, you could put it that way.

YOUTH: Okay, that is an interesting interpretation. But if that were really the case,
wouldn’t it be impossible to do anything to help her? Since she simultaneously needs
that fear of blushing and is suffering because of it, there’d be no end to her troubles.

PHILOSOPHER: Well, this is what I told her: “Fear of blushing is easy to cure.” She
asked, “Really?” I went on: “But I will not cure it.” She pressed me “Why?” I
explained, “Look, it’s thanks to your fear of blushing that you can accept your
dissatisfaction with yourself and the world around you, and with a life that isn’t going
well. It’s thanks to your fear of blushing, and it’s caused by it.” She asked, “How
could it be . . . ?” I went on: “If I did cure it, and nothing in your situation changed at

all, what would you do? You’d probably come here again and say, ‘Give me back my
fear of blushing.’ And that would be beyond my abilities.”

YOUTH: Hmm.

PHILOSOPHER: Her story certainly isn’t unusual. Students preparing for their exams
think, If I pass, life will be rosy. Company workers think, If I get transferred,
everything will go well. But even when those wishes are fulfilled, in many cases
nothing about their situations changes at all.

YOUTH: Indeed.

PHILOSOPHER: When a client shows up requesting a cure from fear of blushing, the
counselor must not cure the symptoms. Then recovery is likely to be even more
difficult. That is the Adlerian psychology way of thinking about this kind of thing.

YOUTH: So what specifically do you do, then? Do you ask what they’re worried about
and then just leave it be?

PHILOSOPHER: She didn’t have confidence in herself. She was very afraid that things
being what they were, he’d reject her even if she did confess to him. And if that
happened, she’d lose even more confidence and get hurt. That’s why she created the
symptom of the fear of blushing. What I can do is to get the person first to accept
“myself now,” and then regardless of the outcome have the courage to step forward.
In Adlerian psychology, this kind of approach is called “encouragement.”

YOUTH: Encouragement?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. I’ll explain systematically what it consists of once our discussion
has progressed a little further. We’re not at that stage yet.

YOUTH: That works for me. In the meantime, I’ll keep the word “encouragement” in
mind. So whatever happened to her?

PHILOSOPHER: Apparently, she had the chance to join a group of friends and spend
time with the man, and in the end it was he who confessed his desire to be with her.
Of course, she never dropped by this study again after that. I don’t know what
became of her fear of blushing. But she probably didn’t need it any longer.

YOUTH: Yes, she clearly didn’t have any use for it anymore.

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Now, keeping this student’s story in mind, let’s think
about your problems. You say that, at present, you notice only your shortcomings,
and it’s unlikely that you’ll ever come to like yourself. And then you said, “I’m sure
that no one would want to get involved with a guy as warped as me.” I’m sure you
understand this already. Why do you dislike yourself? Why do you focus only on
your shortcomings, and why have you decided to not start liking yourself? It’s
because you are overly afraid of being disliked by other people and getting hurt in
your interpersonal relationships.

YOUTH: What do you mean by that?

PHILOSOPHER: Just like the young woman with the fear of blushing, who was afraid
of being rejected by the man, you are afraid of being negated by other people. You’re
afraid of being treated disparagingly, being refused, and sustaining deep mental
wounds. You think that instead of getting entangled in such situations, it would be
better if you just didn’t have relations with anyone in the first place. In other words,
your goal is to not get hurt in your relationships with other people.

YOUTH: Huh . . .

PHILOSOPHER: Now, how can that goal be realized? The answer is easy. Just find your
shortcomings, start disliking yourself, and become someone who doesn’t enter into
interpersonal relationships. That way, if you can shut yourself into your own shell,
you won’t have to interact with anyone, and you’ll even have a justification ready
whenever other people snub you. That it’s because of your shortcomings that you get
snubbed, and if things weren’t this way, you too could be loved.

YOUTH: Ha-ha! Well, you’ve really put me in my place now.

PHILOSOPHER: Don’t be evasive. Being “the way I am” with all these shortcomings is,
for you, a precious virtue. In other words, something that’s to your benefit.

YOUTH: Ouch, that hurts. What a sadist; you’re diabolical! Okay, yes, it’s true: I am
afraid. I don’t want to get hurt in interpersonal relationships. I’m terrified of being
snubbed for who I am. It’s hard to admit it, but you are right.

PHILOSOPHER: Admitting is a good attitude. But don’t forget, it’s basically impossible
to not get hurt in your relations with other people. When you enter into
interpersonal relationships, it is inevitable that to a greater or lesser extent you will get
hurt, and you will hurt someone, too. Adler says, “To get rid of one’s problems, all
one can do is live in the universe all alone.” But one can’t do such a thing.

All Problems Are Interpersonal Relationship
Problems

YOUTH: Wait a minute! I’m supposed to just let that one slip by? “To get rid of one’s
problems, all one can do is live in the universe all alone”? What do you mean by that?
If you lived all alone, wouldn’t you be horribly lonely?

PHILOSOPHER: Oh, but being alone isn’t what makes you feel lonely. Loneliness is
having other people and society and community around you, and having a deep sense
of being excluded from them. To feel lonely, we need other people. That is to say, it is
only in social contexts that a person becomes an “individual.”

YOUTH: If you were really alone, that is, if you existed completely alone in the
universe, you wouldn’t be an individual and you wouldn’t feel lonely, either?

PHILOSOPHER: I suppose the very concept of loneliness wouldn’t even come up. You
wouldn’t need language, and there’d be no use for logic or common sense, either. But
such a thing is impossible. Even if you lived on an uninhabited island, you would
think about someone far across the ocean. Even if you spend your nights alone, you
strain your ears to hear the sound of someone’s breath. As long as there is someone
out there somewhere, you will be haunted by loneliness.

YOUTH: But then you could just rephrase that as, “If one could live in the universe all
alone, one’s problems would go away,” couldn’t you?

PHILOSOPHER: In theory, yes. As Adler goes so far as to assert, “All problems are
interpersonal relationship problems.”

YOUTH: Can you say that again?

PHILOSOPHER: We can repeat it as many times as you like: All problems are
interpersonal relationship problems. This is a concept that runs to the very root of
Adlerian psychology. If all interpersonal relationships were gone from this world,
which is to say if one were alone in the universe and all other people were gone, all
manner of problems would disappear.

YOUTH: That’s a lie! It’s nothing more than academic sophistry.

PHILOSOPHER: Of course, we cannot do without interpersonal relationships. A
human being’s existence, in its very essence, assumes the existence of other human
beings. Living completely separate from others is, in principle, impossible. As you are
indicating, the premise “If one could live all alone in the universe” is unsound.

YOUTH: That’s not the issue I am talking about. Sure, interpersonal relationships are
probably a big problem. That much I acknowledge. But to say that everything comes
down to interpersonal relationship problems, now that’s really an extreme position.
What about the worry of being cut off from interpersonal relationships, the kind of
problems that an individual agonizes over as an individual, problems directed to
oneself? Do you deny all that?

PHILOSOPHER: There is no such thing as worry that is completely defined by the
individual; so-called internal worry does not exist. Whatever the worry that may arise,
the shadows of other people are always present.

YOUTH: But still, you’re a philosopher. Human beings have loftier, greater problems
than things like interpersonal relationships. What is happiness? What is freedom?
And what is the meaning of life? Aren’t these the themes that philosophers have been
investigating ever since the ancient Greeks? And you’re saying, So what?
Interpersonal relationships are everything? It seems kind of pedestrian to me. It’s hard
to believe that a philosopher would say such things.

PHILOSOPHER: Well, then, it seems there’s a need to explain things a bit more
concretely.

YOUTH: Yes, please do! If you’re going to tell me that you’re a philosopher, then
you’ve got to really explain things, or else this makes no sense.

PHILOSOPHER: You were so afraid of interpersonal relationships that you came to
dislike yourself. You’ve avoided interpersonal relationships by disliking yourself.

These assertions shook the youth to his very core. The words had an
undeniable truth that seemed to pierce his heart. Even so, he had to find a
clear rebuttal to the statement that all the problems that people experience are
interpersonal relationship problems. Adler was trivializing people’s issues.
The problems I’m suffering from aren’t so mundane!

Feelings of Inferiority Are Subjective
Assumptions

PHILOSOPHER: Let’s look at interpersonal relationships from a slightly different
perspective. Are you familiar with the term “feeling of inferiority”?

YOUTH: What a silly question. As you can surely tell from our discussion up to now,
I’m just a huge blob of feelings of inferiority.

PHILOSOPHER: What are those feelings, specifically?

YOUTH: Well, for instance, if I see something in a newspaper about a person around
my age, someone who’s really successful, I’m always overcome with these feelings of
inferiority. If someone else who’s lived the same amount of time I have is so
successful, then what on earth am I doing with myself? Or when I see a friend who
seems happy, before I even feel like celebrating with him, I’m filled with envy and
frustration. Of course, this pimple-covered face doesn’t help matters, and I’ve got
strong feelings of inferiority when it comes to my education and occupation. And
then there’s my income and social standing. I guess I’m just completely riddled with
feelings of inferiority.

PHILOSOPHER: I see. Incidentally, Adler is thought to be the first to use the term
“feeling of inferiority” in the kind of context in which it is spoken of today.

YOUTH: Huh, I didn’t know that.

PHILOSOPHER: In Adler’s native German, the word is Minderwertigkeitsgefühl, which
means a feeling (Gefühl) of having less (minder) worth (Wert). So “feeling of

inferiority” has to do with one’s value judgment of oneself.

YOUTH: Value judgment?

PHILOSOPHER: It’s the feeling that one has no worth, or that one is worth only so
much.

YOUTH: Ah, that’s a feeling I know well. That’s me in a nutshell. Not a day goes by
without me tormenting myself that there’s no point in being alive.

PHILOSOPHER: Well, then, let’s have a look at my own feelings of inferiority. When
you first met me, what was your impression? In terms of physical characteristics.

YOUTH: Um, well . . .

PHILOSOPHER: There’s no need to hold back. Be direct.

YOUTH: All right, I guess you were smaller than I’d imagined.

PHILOSOPHER: Thank you. I am 61 inches tall. Adler was apparently around the same
height. There was a time—until I was right around your age, actually—when I was
concerned about my height. I was sure that things would be different if I were of
average height, eight or even just four inches taller. As if a more enjoyable life were
waiting for me. I talked to a friend about it when I was having these feelings, and he
said it was “a bunch of nonsense” and simply dismissed it.

YOUTH: That’s horrible! Some friend.

PHILOSOPHER: And then he said, “What would you do if you got taller? You know,
you’ve got a gift for getting people to relax.” With a man who’s big and strong, it’s
true, it does seem he can end up intimidating people just because of his size. With
someone small like me, on the other hand, people let go of their wariness. So it made
me realize that having a small build was a desirable thing both to me and to those
around me. In other words, there was a transformation of values. I’m not worried
about my height anymore.

YOUTH: Okay, but that’s—

PHILOSOPHER: Wait until I am finished. The important thing here is that my height
of 61 inches wasn’t inferior.

YOUTH: It wasn’t inferior?

PHILOSOPHER: It was not, in fact, lacking in or lesser than something. Sure, my 61
inches is less than the average height, and an objectively measured number. At first
glance, one might think it inferior. But the issue is really what sort of meaning I
attribute to that height, what sort of value I give it.

YOUTH: What does that mean?

PHILOSOPHER: My feelings about my height were all subjective feelings of inferiority,
which arose entirely through my comparing myself to others. That is to say, in my
interpersonal relationships. Because if there hadn’t been anyone with whom to
compare myself, I wouldn’t have had any occasion to think I was short. Right now,
you too are suffering from various feelings of inferiority. But please understand that
what you are feeling is not an objective inferiority but a subjective feeling of
inferiority. Even with an issue like height, it’s all reduced to its subjectivity.

YOUTH: In other words, the feelings of inferiority we’re suffering from are subjective
interpretations rather than objective facts?

PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. Seeing it from my friend’s point of view that I get people to
relax or that I don’t intimidate them—such aspects can become strong points. Of
course, this is a subjective interpretation. You could even say it’s an arbitrary
assumption. However, there is one good thing about subjectivity: It allows you to
make your own choice. Precisely because I am leaving it to subjectivity, the choice to
view my height as either an advantage or disadvantage is left open to me.

YOUTH: The argument that you can choose a new lifestyle?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. We cannot alter objective facts. But subjective
interpretations can be altered as much as one likes. And we are inhabitants of a
subjective world. We talked about this at the very beginning, right?

YOUTH: Yes; the well water that’s sixty degrees.

PHILOSOPHER: Now, remember the German word for a feeling of inferiority,
Minderwertigkeitsgefühl. As I mentioned a moment ago, “feeling of inferiority” is a
term that has to do with one’s value judgment of oneself. So what on earth could this
value be? Okay, take diamonds, for instance, which are traded at a high value. Or
currency. We find particular values for these things and say that one carat is this
much, that prices are such and such. But if you change your point of view, a diamond
is nothing but a little stone.

YOUTH: Well, intellectually it is.

PHILOSOPHER: In other words, value is something that’s based on a social context.
The value given to a one-dollar bill is not an objectively attributed value, though that
might be a commonsense approach. If one considers its actual cost as printed
material, the value is nowhere near a dollar. If I were the only person in this world and
no one else existed, I’d probably be putting those one-dollar bills in my fireplace in
wintertime. Maybe I’d be using them to blow my nose. Following exactly the same
logic, there should have been no reason at all for me to worry about my height.

YOUTH: If you were the only person in this world and no one else existed?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. The problem of value in the end brings us back to interpersonal
relationships again.

YOUTH: So this connects to what you were saying about all problems being
interpersonal relationship problems?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, that’s correct.

An Inferiority Complex Is an Excuse

YOUTH: But can you say for sure that feelings of inferiority are really a problem of
interpersonal relationships? Even the kind of person who is regarded socially as a
success, who doesn’t need to debase himself in relationships with other people, still
has some feelings of inferiority? Even the businessman who amasses enormous
wealth, the peerless beauty who is the envy of all, and the Olympic gold medalist—
every one of them would be plagued by feelings of inferiority. Well, that’s how it
seems to me. How should I think about this?

PHILOSOPHER: Adler recognizes that feelings of inferiority are something everyone
has. There’s nothing bad about feelings of inferiority themselves.

YOUTH: So why do people have them in the first place?

PHILOSOPHER: It’s probably necessary to understand this in a certain order. First of
all, people enter this world as helpless beings. And people have the universal desire to
escape from that helpless state. Adler called this the “pursuit of superiority.”

YOUTH: Pursuit of superiority?

PHILOSOPHER: This is something you could think of as simply “hoping to improve”
or “pursuing an ideal state.” For instance, a toddler learns to steady himself on both
legs. He has the universal desire to learn language and to improve. And all the
advancements of science throughout human history are due to this “pursuit of
superiority,” too.

YOUTH: Okay. And then?

PHILOSOPHER: The counterpart of this is the feeling of inferiority. Everyone is in this
“condition of wanting to improve” that is the pursuit of superiority. One holds up
various ideals or goals and heads toward them. However, on not being able to reach
one’s ideals, one harbors a sense of being lesser. For instance, there are chefs who, the
more inspired and accomplished they become, are forever beset with the sort of
feeling of inferiority that makes them say to themselves, I’m still not good enough, or
I’ve got to bring my cooking to the next level, and that sort of thing.

YOUTH: That’s true.

PHILOSOPHER: Adler is saying that the pursuit of superiority and the feeling of
inferiority are not diseases but stimulants to normal, healthy striving and growth. If it
is not used in the wrong way, the feeling of inferiority, too, can promote striving and
growth.

YOUTH: The feeling of inferiority is a kind of launch pad?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. One tries to get rid of one’s feeling of inferiority and keep
moving forward. One’s never satisfied with one’s present situation—even if it’s just a
single step, one wants to make progress. One wants to be happier. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with the state of this kind of feeling of inferiority. There are, however,
people who lose the courage to take a single step forward, who cannot accept the fact
that the situation can be changed by making realistic efforts. People who, before even
doing anything, simply give up and say things like “I’m not good enough anyway” or
“Even if I tried, I wouldn’t stand a chance.”

YOUTH: Well, that’s true. There’s no doubt about it—if the feeling of inferiority is
strong, most people will become negative and say, “I’m not good enough anyway.”
Because that’s what a feeling of inferiority is.

PHILOSOPHER: No, that’s not a feeling of inferiority—that’s an inferiority complex.

YOUTH: A complex? That’s what the feeling of inferiority is, isn’t it?

PHILOSOPHER: Be careful. The way the word “complex” is used today, it seems to
have the same meaning as “feeling of inferiority.” You hear people saying, “I’ve got a
complex about my eyelids,” or “He’s got a complex about his education,” that sort of
thing. This is an utter misuse of the term. At base, “complex” refers to an abnormal
mental state made up of a complicated group of emotions and ideas, and has nothing
to do with the feeling of inferiority. For instance, there’s Freud’s Oedipus complex,
which is used in the context of discussing the abnormal attraction of the child to the
opposite-sex parent.

YOUTH: Yes. The nuances of abnormality are especially strong when it comes to the
mother complex and the father complex.

PHILOSOPHER: For the same reason, then, it’s crucial to not mix up “feeling of
inferiority” and “inferiority complex,” and to think about them as clearly separate.

YOUTH: Concretely, how are they different?

PHILOSOPHER: There is nothing particularly wrong with the feeling of inferiority
itself. You understand this point now, right? As Adler says, the feeling of inferiority
can be a trigger for striving and growth. For instance, if one had a feeling of inferiority
with regard to one’s education, and resolved to oneself, I’m not well educated, so I’ll
just have to try harder than anyone else, that would be a desirable direction. The
inferiority complex, on the other hand, refers to a condition of having begun to use
one’s feeling of inferiority as a kind of excuse. So one thinks to oneself, I’m not well
educated, so I can’t succeed, or I’m not good-looking, so I can’t get married. When
someone is insisting on the logic of “A is the situation, so B cannot be done” in such a
way in everyday life, that is not something that fits in the feeling of inferiority
category. It is an inferiority complex.

YOUTH: No, it’s a legitimate causal relationship. If you’re not well educated, it takes
away your chances of getting work or making it in the world. You’re regarded as low
on the social scale, and you can’t succeed. That’s not an excuse at all. It’s just a cold
hard fact, isn’t it?

PHILOSOPHER: No, you are wrong.

YOUTH: How? Where am I wrong?

PHILOSOPHER: What you are calling a causal relationship is something that Adler
explains as “apparent cause and effect.” That is to say, you convince yourself that
there is some serious causal relationship where there is none whatsoever. The other
day, someone told me, “The reason I can’t get married easily is that my parents got
divorced when I was a child.” From the viewpoint of Freudian etiology (the
attributing of causes), the parents’ divorce was a great trauma, which connects in a
clear causal relationship with one’s views on marriage. Adler, however, with his stance
of teleology (the attributing of purpose), rejects such arguments as “apparent cause
and effect.”

YOUTH: But even so, the reality is that having a good education makes it easier to be
successful in society. I had thought you were wise to the ways of the world.

PHILOSOPHER: The real issue is how one confronts that reality. If what you are
thinking is, I’m not well educated, so I can’t succeed, then instead of I can’t succeed, you
should think, I don’t want to succeed.

YOUTH: I don’t want to succeed? What kind of reasoning is that?

PHILOSOPHER: It’s simply that it’s scary to take even one step forward; also, that you
don’t want to make realistic efforts. You don’t want to change so much that you’d be
willing to sacrifice the pleasures you enjoy now—for instance, the time you spend
playing and engaged in hobbies. In other words, you’re not equipped with the
courage to change your lifestyle. It’s easier with things just as they are now, even if you
have some complaints or limitations.

Braggarts Have Feelings of Inferiority

YOUTH: Maybe so, but . . .

PHILOSOPHER: Further, you harbor an inferiority complex about education and
think, I’m not well educated, so I can’t succeed. Put the other way around, the
reasoning can be, If only I were well educated, I could be really successful.

YOUTH: Hmm, true.

PHILOSOPHER: This is the other aspect of the inferiority complex. Those who
manifest their inferiority complexes in words or attitudes, who say that “A is the
situation, so B cannot be done,” are implying that if only it were not for A, they’d be
capable and have value.

YOUTH: If only it weren’t for this, I could do it, too.

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. As Adler points out, no one is capable of putting up with having
feelings of inferiority for a long period of time. Feelings of inferiority are something
that everyone has, but staying in that condition is too heavy to endure forever.

YOUTH: Huh? This is getting pretty confusing.

PHILOSOPHER: Okay, let’s go over things one at a time. The condition of having a
feeling of inferiority is a condition of feeling some sort of lack in oneself in the
present situation. So then, the question is—

YOUTH: How do you fill in the part that’s missing, right?

PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. How to compensate for the part that is lacking. The healthiest
way is to try to compensate through striving and growth. For instance, it could be by
applying oneself to one’s studies, engaging in constant training, or being diligent in
one’s work. However, people who aren’t equipped with that courage end up stepping
into an inferiority complex. Again, it’s thinking, I’m not well educated, so I can’t
succeed. And it’s implying your capability by saying, “If only I were well educated, I
could be really successful.” That “the real me,” which just happens to be obscured
right now by the matter of education, is superior.

YOUTH: No, that doesn’t make sense—the second thing you’re saying is beyond a
feeling of inferiority. That’s really more bravado than anything else, isn’t it?

PHILOSOPHER: Indeed. The inferiority complex can also develop into another special
mental state.

YOUTH: And what is that?

PHILOSOPHER: I doubt you have heard much about it. It’s the “superiority complex.”

YOUTH: Superiority complex?

PHILOSOPHER: One is suffering from strong feelings of inferiority, and, on top of
that, one doesn’t have the courage to compensate through healthy modes of striving
and growth. That being said, one can’t tolerate the inferiority complex of thinking, A
is the situation, so B cannot be done. One can’t accept “one’s incapable self.” At that
point, the person thinks of trying to compensate in some other fashion and looks for
an easier way out.

YOUTH: What way is that?

PHILOSOPHER: It’s to act as if one is indeed superior and to indulge in a fabricated
feeling of superiority.

YOUTH: A fabricated feeling of superiority?

PHILOSOPHER: A familiar example would be “giving authority.”

YOUTH: What does that mean?

PHILOSOPHER: One makes a show of being on good terms with a powerful person
(broadly speaking—it could be anyone from the leader of your school class to a
famous celebrity). And by doing that, one lets it be known that one is special.
Behaviors like misrepresenting one’s work experience or excessive allegiance to
particular brands of clothing are forms of giving authority, and probably also have
aspects of the superiority complex. In each case, it isn’t that the “I” is actually
superior or special. It is only that one is making the “I” look superior by linking it to
authority. In short, it’s a fabricated feeling of superiority.

YOUTH: And at the base of that, there is an intense feeling of inferiority?

PHILOSOPHER: Of course. I don’t know much about fashion, but I think it’s advisable
to think of people who wear rings with rubies and emeralds on all their fingers as
having issues with feelings of inferiority, rather than issues of aesthetic sensibility. In
other words, they have signs of a superiority complex.

YOUTH: Right.

PHILOSOPHER: But those who make themselves look bigger on borrowed power are
essentially living according to other people’s value systems—they are living other
people’s lives. This is a point that must be emphasized.

YOUTH: So, a superiority complex. That’s a very interesting psychology. Can you give
me a different example?

PHILOSOPHER: There’s the kind of person who likes to boast about his achievements.
Someone who clings to his past glory and is always recounting memories of the time
when his light shone brightest. Maybe you know some people like this. All such
people can be said to have superiority complexes.

YOUTH: The kind of man who boasts about his achievements? Yes, it is an arrogant
attitude, but he can boast because he actually is superior. You can’t call that a
fabricated feeling of superiority.

PHILOSOPHER: Ah, but you are wrong. Those who go so far as to boast about things
out loud actually have no confidence in themselves. As Adler clearly indicates, “The
one who boasts does so only out of a feeling of inferiority.”

YOUTH: You’re saying that boasting is an inverted feeling of inferiority?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. If one really has confidence in oneself, one doesn’t feel
the need to boast. It’s because one’s feeling of inferiority is strong that one boasts.
One feels the need to flaunt one’s superiority all the more. There’s the fear that if one
doesn’t do that, not a single person will accept one “the way I am.” This is a full-
blown superiority complex.

YOUTH: So though one would think from the sound of the words that inferiority
complex and superiority complex were polar opposites, in actuality they border on
each other?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, they are clearly connected. Now, there is one last example I’d like
to give, a complex example that deals with boasting. It is a pattern leading to a
particular feeling of superiority that manifests due to the feeling of inferiority itself
becoming intensified. Concretely speaking, it’s bragging about one’s own misfortune.

YOUTH: Bragging about one’s own misfortune?

PHILOSOPHER: The person who assumes a boasting manner when talking about his
upbringing and the like, the various misfortunes that have rained down upon him. If
someone should try to comfort this person, or suggest some change be made, he’ll
refuse the helping hand by saying, “You don’t understand how I feel.”

YOUTH: Well, there are people like that, but . . .

PHILOSOPHER: Such people try to make themselves “special” by way of their
experience of misfortune, and with the single fact of their misfortune try to place
themselves above others. Take the fact that I am short, for instance. Let’s say that
kind-hearted people come up to me and say, “It’s nothing to worry about,” or “Such
things have nothing to do with human values.” Now, if I were to reject them and say,
“You think you know what short people go through, huh?” no one would say a thing
to me anymore. I’m sure that everyone around me would start treating me just as if I
were a boil about to burst and would handle me very carefully—or, I should say,
circumspectly.

YOUTH: Absolutely true.

PHILOSOPHER: By doing that, my position becomes superior to other people’s, and I
can become special. Quite a few people try to be “special” by adopting this kind of
attitude when they are sick or injured, or suffering the mental anguish of heartbreak.

YOUTH: So they reveal their feeling of inferiority and use it to their advantage?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. They use their misfortune to their advantage and try to control
the other party with it. By declaring how unfortunate they are and how much they
have suffered, they are trying to worry the people around them (their family and
friends, for example), and to restrict their speech and behavior, and control them.
The people I was talking about at the very beginning, who shut themselves up in their
rooms, frequently indulge in feelings of superiority and use misfortune to their
advantage. So much so that Adler himself pointed out, “In our culture weakness can
be quite strong and powerful.”

YOUTH: So weakness is powerful?

PHILOSOPHER: Adler says, “In fact, if we were to ask ourselves who is the strongest
person in our culture, the logical answer would be, the baby. The baby rules and
cannot be dominated.” The baby rules over the adults with his weakness. And it is
because of this weakness that no one can control him.

YOUTH: I’ve never encountered that viewpoint.

PHILOSOPHER: Of course, the words of the person who has been hurt—“You don’t
understand how I feel”—are likely to contain a certain degree of truth. Completely
understanding the feelings of the person who is suffering is something that no one is
capable of. But as long as one continues to use one’s misfortune to one’s advantage in
order to be “special,” one will always need that misfortune.

The youth and philosopher had now covered a series of discussion topics: the
feeling of inferiority, the inferiority complex, and the superiority complex.
Psychology keywords though they clearly were, the truths they contained
differed greatly from the youth’s imagined meanings. Still, something didn’t
feel right to him, somehow. What is it about all this that I’m having a hard
time accepting? Well, it must be the introductory part, the premise, that is
giving me doubts. The youth calmly opened his mouth to speak.

Life Is Not a Competition

YOUTH: But I guess I still don’t really get it.

PHILOSOPHER: Okay, ask me anything you like.

YOUTH: Adler recognizes that the pursuit of superiority—one’s trying to be a more
superior being—is a universal desire, doesn’t he? On the other hand, he’s striking a
note of warning with regard to excessive feelings of inferiority and superiority. It’d be
easy to understand if he could renounce the pursuit of superiority—then I could
accept it. What are we supposed to do?

PHILOSOPHER: Think about it this way. When we refer to the pursuit of superiority,
there’s a tendency to think of it as the desire to try to be superior to other people; to
climb higher, even if it means kicking others down—you know, the image of
ascending a stairway and pushing people out of the way to get to the top. Adler does
not uphold such attitudes, of course. Rather, he’s saying that on the same level
playing field, there are people who are moving forward, and there are people who are
moving forward behind them. Keep that image in mind. Though the distance
covered and the speed of walking differ, everyone is walking equally in the same flat
place. The pursuit of superiority is the mind-set of taking a single step forward on
one’s own feet, not the mind-set of competition of the sort that necessitates aiming to
be greater than other people.

YOUTH: So life is not a competition?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. It’s enough to just keep moving in a forward direction,
without competing with anyone. And, of course, there is no need to compare oneself
with others.

YOUTH: No, that’s impossible. We’ll always compare ourselves to other people, no
matter what. That’s exactly where our feeling of inferiority comes from, isn’t it?

PHILOSOPHER: A healthy feeling of inferiority is not something that comes from
comparing oneself to others; it comes from one’s comparison with one’s ideal self.

YOUTH: But . . .

PHILOSOPHER: Look, all of us are different. Gender, age, knowledge, experience,
appearance—no two of us are exactly the same. Let’s acknowledge in a positive
manner the fact that other people are different from us. And that we are not the
same, but we are equal.

YOUTH: We are not the same, but we are equal?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. Everyone is different. Don’t mix up that difference with
good and bad, and superior and inferior. Whatever differences we may have, we are
all equal.

YOUTH: No distinction of rank for people. Idealistically speaking, I suppose so. But
aren’t we trying to have an honest discussion about reality now? Would you really
say, for instance, that I, an adult, and a child who is still struggling with his arithmetic
are equal?

PHILOSOPHER: In terms of the amount of knowledge and experience, and then the
amount of responsibility that can be taken, there are bound to be differences. The
child might not be able to tie his shoes properly, or figure out complicated
mathematical equations, or be able to take the same degree of responsibility as an
adult when problems arise. However, such things shouldn’t have anything to do with
human values. My answer is the same. Human beings are all equal, but not the same.

YOUTH: Then are you saying that a child should be treated like a full-grown adult?

PHILOSOPHER: No. Instead of treating the child like an adult, or like a child, one must
treat him or her like a human being. One interacts with the child with sincerity, as

another human being just like oneself.

YOUTH: Let’s change the question. All people are equal. They’re on the same level
playing field. But actually, there’s a disparity here, isn’t there? Those who move
forward are superior, and those who pursue them from behind are inferior. So we end
up at the problem of superior and inferior, don’t we?

PHILOSOPHER: No, we do not. It does not matter if one is trying to walk in front of
others or walk behind them. It is as if we are moving through a flat space that has no
vertical axis. We do not walk in order to compete with someone. It is in trying to
progress past who one is now that there is value.

YOUTH: Have you become free from all forms of competition?

PHILOSOPHER: Of course. I do not think about gaining status or honor, and I live my
life as an outsider philosopher without any connection whatsoever to worldly
competition.

YOUTH: Does that mean you dropped out of competition? That you somehow
accepted defeat?

PHILOSOPHER: No. I withdrew from places that are preoccupied with winning and
losing. When one is trying to be oneself, competition will inevitably get in the way.

YOUTH: No way! That’s a tired-out old man’s argument. Young folks like me have to
pull themselves up by their own bootstraps amid the tension of competition. It’s
because I don’t have a rival running alongside me that I can’t outdo myself. What’s
wrong with thinking of interpersonal relationships as competitive?

PHILOSOPHER: If that rival was someone you could call a comrade, it’s possible that it
would lead to self-improvement. But in many cases, a competitor will not be your
comrade.

YOUTH: Meaning what, exactly?

You’re the Only One Worrying About Your
Appearance

PHILOSOPHER: Let’s tie up the loose ends. At the outset, you expressed dissatisfaction
with Adler’s definition that all problems are interpersonal relationship problems,
right? That was the basis for our discussion on feelings of inferiority.

YOUTH: Yes, that’s correct. The subject of feelings of inferiority was too intense, and I
was on the verge of forgetting that point. Why did you bring up the subject in the
first place?

PHILOSOPHER: It is connected with the subject of competition. Please remember that.
If there is competition at the core of a person’s interpersonal relationships, he will not
be able to escape interpersonal relationship problems or escape misfortune.

YOUTH: Why not?

PHILOSOPHER: Because at the end of a competition, there are winners and losers.

YOUTH: It’s perfectly fine to have winners and losers!

PHILOSOPHER: Give some thought to it, then, if it were you, specifically, who had a
consciousness of being in competition with the people around you. In your relations
with them, you would have no choice but to be conscious of victory or defeat. Mr. A
got into this famous university, Mr. B found work at that big company, and Mr. C
has hooked up with such a nice-looking woman—and you’ll compare yourself to
them and think, This is all I’ve got.

YOUTH: Ha-ha. That’s pretty specific.

PHILOSOPHER: When one is conscious of competition and victory and defeat, it is
inevitable that feelings of inferiority will arise. Because one is constantly comparing
oneself to others and thinking, I beat that person or I lost to that person. The inferiority
complex and the superiority complex are extensions of that. Now, what kind of being
do you think the other person is to you, at that point?

YOUTH: I don’t know—a rival, I guess?

PHILOSOPHER: No, not a mere rival. Before you know it, you start to see each and
every person, everyone in the whole world, as your enemy.

YOUTH: My enemy?

PHILOSOPHER: You start to think that people are always looking down on you and
treating you with scorn, that they’re all enemies who must never be underestimated,
who lie in wait for any opening and attack at the drop of a hat. In short, that the
world is a terrifying place.

YOUTH: Enemies who must never be underestimated . . . That’s who I’m in
competition with?

PHILOSOPHER: This is what is so terrifying about competition. Even if you’re not a
loser, even if you’re someone who keeps on winning, if you are someone who has
placed himself in competition, you will never have a moment’s peace. You don’t want
to be a loser. And you always have to keep on winning if you don’t want to be a loser.
You can’t trust other people. The reason so many people don’t really feel happy while
they’re building up their success in the eyes of society is that they are living in
competition. Because to them, the world is a perilous place that is overflowing with
enemies.

YOUTH: I suppose so, but . . .

PHILOSOPHER: But do other people actually look at you so much? Are they really
watching you around the clock and lying in wait for the perfect moment to attack? It
seems rather unlikely. A young friend of mine, when he was a teenager, used to spend

a lot of time in front of the mirror arranging his hair. And once, when he was doing
that, his grandmother said, “You’re the only one who’s worried how you look.” He
says that it got a bit easier for him to deal with life after that.

YOUTH: Hey, that’s a dig at me, isn’t it? Sure, maybe I do see the people around me as
enemies. I’m constantly in fear of being attacked, of the arrows that could come
flying at me at any moment. I always think that I’m being watched by others, that I’m
being subjected to harsh judgment, and that I’m going to be attacked. And it’s
probably true that this is a self-conscious reaction, just like the mirror-obsessed
teenager. The people of the world aren’t paying attention to me. Even if I were to go
walking on my hands down the street, they’d take no notice! But I don’t know. Are
you saying, after all, that my feeling of inferiority is something that I chose, that has
some sort of goal? That just doesn’t make any sense to me.

PHILOSOPHER: And why is that?

YOUTH: I have a brother who is three years older than I am. He fits the classic image of
the big brother—he always does what our parents say, he excels in his studies and in
sports, and he’s the very picture of diligence. And from the time I was little, I was
always compared to him. He is older and more advanced, so of course I could never
beat him at anything. Our parents did not care at all about such circumstances, and
never gave me any sign of recognition. Whatever I did, I got treated like a child, and I
was berated at every opportunity and told to be quiet. I learned to keep my feelings to
myself. I’ve lived my life totally steeped in feelings of inferiority, and I had no choice
but to be conscious of being in competition with my brother!

PHILOSOPHER: I see.

YOUTH: Sometimes I think of it like this: I’m like a gourd that grew without getting
enough sun. So it is only natural that I’m all twisted up with feelings of inferiority. If
there’s anyone who could grow straight in such a situation, well, I’d love to meet him!

PHILOSOPHER: I understand. I really do understand how you feel. Now, let’s look at
“competition” while taking into consideration your relationship with your brother. If

you didn’t think with a competition orientation, with regard to your brother and
your other interpersonal relationships, how would people seem to you?

YOUTH: Well, my brother is my brother, and I guess other people are another story.

PHILOSOPHER: No, they should become more positive comrades.

YOUTH: Comrades?

PHILOSOPHER: Earlier, didn’t you say, “I can’t celebrate other people’s happiness with
all my heart”? You think of interpersonal relationships as competition; you perceive
other people’s happiness as “my defeat,” and that is why you can’t celebrate it.
However, once one is released from the schema of competition, the need to triumph
over someone disappears. One is also released from the fear that says, Maybe I will
lose. And one becomes able to celebrate other people’s happiness with all one’s heart.
One may become able to contribute actively to other people’s happiness. The person
who always has the will to help another in times of need—that is someone who may
properly be called your comrade.

YOUTH: Hmm.

PHILOSOPHER: Now we come to the important part. When you are able to truly feel
that “people are my comrades,” your way of looking at the world will change utterly.
No longer will you think of the world as a perilous place, or be plagued by needless
doubts; the world will appear before you as a safe and pleasant place. And your
interpersonal relationship problems will decrease dramatically.

YOUTH: What a happy person you are! But you know, that’s all like a sunflower. It’s
the reasoning of a sunflower that is bathed in full sunshine every day and is nurtured
with ample watering. A gourd grown in the dim shade doesn’t do so well!

PHILOSOPHER: You are returning to etiology (the attributing of causes) again.

YOUTH: Oh, yes, I sure am!

Raised by strict parents, the youth had been oppressed and compared to his
elder brother ever since childhood. None of his opinions were ever heard, and
he was subjected to the violent words that he was a poor excuse for a little
brother. Unable to make friends even at school, he spent all his free time
alone in the library, which became his sole place of refuge. This youth who
had passed his early years in such a way was truly an inhabitant of etiology. If
he had not been raised by those parents, if that elder brother had never
existed, and if he had not attended that school, he could have had a brighter
life. The youth had been trying to participate in the discussion as
coolheadedly as possible, but now his many years of pent-up feelings came
bursting out.

From Power Struggle to Revenge

YOUTH: Okay, all this talk about teleology and such is pure sophistry, and trauma
definitely does exist. And people cannot break free from the past. Surely you realize
that? We cannot go back to the past in a time machine. As long as the past exists as
the past, we live within contexts from the past. If one were to treat the past as
something that does not exist, that would be the same as negating the entire life one
has led. Are you suggesting I choose such an irresponsible life?

PHILOSOPHER: It is true that one cannot use a time machine or turn back the hands of
time. But what kind of meaning does one attribute to past events? This is the task
that is given to “you now.”

YOUTH: All right, so let’s talk about “now.” Last time, you said that people fabricate
the emotion of anger, right? And that that is the standpoint of teleology. I still cannot
accept that statement. For example, how would you explain instances of anger toward
society, or anger toward government? Would you say that these, too, are emotions
fabricated in order to push one’s opinions?

PHILOSOPHER: Certainly, there are times when I feel indignation with regard to social
problems. But I would say that rather than a sudden burst of emotion, it is
indignation based on logic. There is a difference between personal anger (personal
grudge) and indignation with regard to society’s contradictions and injustices
(righteous indignation). Personal anger soon cools. Righteous indignation, on the
other hand, lasts for a long time. Anger as an expression of a personal grudge is
nothing but a tool for making others submit to you.

YOUTH: You say that personal grudges and righteous indignation are different?

PHILOSOPHER: They are completely different. Because righteous indignation goes
beyond one’s own interests.

YOUTH: Then I’ll ask about personal grudges. Surely even you get angry sometimes—
for instance, if someone hurls abuse at you for no particular reason—don’t you?

PHILOSOPHER: No, I do not.

YOUTH: Come on, be honest.

PHILOSOPHER: If someone were to abuse me to my face, I would think about the
person’s hidden goal. Even if you are not directly abusive, when you feel genuinely
angry due to another person’s words or behavior, please consider that the person is
challenging you to a power struggle.

YOUTH: A power struggle?

PHILOSOPHER: For instance, a child will tease an adult with various pranks and
misbehaviors. In many cases, this is done with the goal of getting attention and will
cease just before the adult gets genuinely angry. However, if the child does not stop
before the adult gets genuinely angry, then his goal is actually to get in a fight.

YOUTH: Why would he want to get in a fight?

PHILOSOPHER: He wants to win. He wants to prove his power by winning.

YOUTH: I don’t really get that. Could you give me some concrete examples?

PHILOSOPHER: Let’s say you and a friend have been discussing the current political
situation. Before long, it turns into a heated argument, and neither of you is willing to
accept any differences of opinion until finally it reaches the point where he starts
engaging in personal attacks—that you’re stupid, and it’s because of people like you
that this country doesn’t change, that sort of thing.

YOUTH: But if someone said that to me, I wouldn’t be able to put up with it.

PHILOSOPHER: In this case, what is the other person’s goal? Is it only that he wants to
discuss politics? No, it isn’t. It’s that he finds you unbearable, and he wants to
criticize and provoke you, and make you submit through a power struggle. If you get
angry at this point, the moment he has been anticipating will arrive, and the
relationship will suddenly turn into a power struggle. No matter what the
provocation, you must not get taken in.

YOUTH: No, there’s no need to run away from it. If someone wants to start a fight, it’s
fine to accept it. Because it’s the other guy who’s at fault, anyway. You can bash his
nose in, the stupid fool. With words, that is.

PHILOSOPHER: Now let’s say you take control of the quarrel. And then the other man,
who was seeking to defeat you, withdraws in a sportsmanlike manner. The thing is,
the power struggle doesn’t end there. Having lost the dispute, he rushes on to the
next stage.

YOUTH: The next stage?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. It’s the revenge stage. Though he has withdrawn for the time
being, he will be scheming some revenge in another place and another form, and will
reappear with an act of retaliation.

YOUTH: Like what, for instance?

PHILOSOPHER: The child oppressed by his parents will turn to delinquency. He’ll stop
going to school. He’ll cut his wrists or engage in other acts of self-harm. In Freudian
etiology, this is regarded as simple cause and effect: The parents raised the child in this
way, and that is why the child grew up to be like this. It’s just like pointing out that a
plant wasn’t watered, so it withered. It’s an interpretation that is certainly easy to
understand. But Adlerian teleology does not turn a blind eye to the goal that the child
is hiding. That is to say, the goal of revenge on the parents. If he becomes a
delinquent, stops going to school, cuts his wrists, or things like that, the parents will
be upset. They’ll panic and worry themselves sick over him. It is in the knowledge
that this will happen that the child engages in problem behavior. So that the current

goal (revenge on the parents) can be realized, not because he is motivated by past
causes (home environment).

YOUTH: He engages in problem behavior in order to upset his parents?

PHILOSOPHER: That’s right. There are probably a lot of people who feel mystified by
seeing a child who cuts his wrists, and they think, Why would he do such a thing? But
try to think how the people around the child—the parents, for instance—will feel as a
result of the behavior of wrist cutting. If you do, the goal behind the behavior should
come into view of its own accord.

YOUTH: The goal being revenge?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. And once the interpersonal relationship reaches the revenge stage,
it is almost impossible for either party to find a solution. To prevent this from
happening, when one is challenged to a power struggle, one must never allow oneself
to be taken in.

Admitting Fault Is Not Defeat

YOUTH: All right, then what should you do when you’re subjected to personal attacks
right to your face? Do you just grin and bear it?

PHILOSOPHER: No, the idea that you are “bearing it” is proof that you are still stuck in
the power struggle. When you are challenged to a fight, and you sense that it is a
power struggle, step down from the conflict as soon as possible. Do not answer his
action with a reaction. That is the only thing we can do.

YOUTH: But is it really that easy to not respond to provocation? In the first place, how
would you say I should control my anger?

PHILOSOPHER: When you control your anger, you’re “bearing it,” right? Instead, let’s
learn a way to settle things without using the emotion of anger. Because after all,
anger is a tool. A means for achieving a goal.

YOUTH: That’s a tough one.

PHILOSOPHER: The first thing that I want you to understand here is the fact that
anger is a form of communication, and that communication is nevertheless possible
without using anger. We can convey our thoughts and intentions and be accepted
without any need for anger. If you learn to understand this experientially, the anger
emotion will stop appearing all on its own.

YOUTH: But what if they come at you with mistaken accusations, or make insulting
comments? I shouldn’t get angry even then?

PHILOSOPHER: You don’t seem to understand yet. It’s not that you mustn’t get angry,
but that there is no need to rely on the tool of anger. Irascible people do not have
short tempers—it is only that they do not know that there are effective
communication tools other than anger. That is why people end up saying things like
“I just snapped” or, “He flew into a rage.” We end up relying on anger to
communicate.

YOUTH: Effective communication tools other than anger . . .

PHILOSOPHER: We have language. We can communicate through language. Believe in
the power of language and the language of logic.

YOUTH: Certainly, if I did not believe in that, we wouldn’t be having this dialogue.

PHILOSOPHER: One more thing about power struggles. In every instance, no matter
how much you might think you are right, try not to criticize the other party on that
basis. This is an interpersonal relationship trap that many people fall into.

YOUTH: Why’s that?

PHILOSOPHER: The moment one is convinced that “I am right” in an interpersonal
relationship, one has already stepped into a power struggle.

YOUTH: Just because you think you’re right? No way, that’s just blowing things all
out of proportion.

PHILOSOPHER: I am right. That is to say, the other party is wrong. At that point, the
focus of the discussion shifts from “the rightness of the assertions” to “the state of the
interpersonal relationship.” In other words, the conviction that “I am right” leads to
the assumption that “this person is wrong,” and finally it becomes a contest and you
are thinking, I have to win. It’s a power struggle through and through.

YOUTH: Hmm.

PHILOSOPHER: In the first place, the rightness of one’s assertions has nothing to do
with winning or losing. If you think you are right, regardless of what other people’s
opinions might be, the matter should be closed then and there. However, many
people will rush into a power struggle and try to make others submit to them. And
that is why they think of “admitting a mistake” as “admitting defeat.”

YOUTH: Yes, there definitely is that aspect.

PHILOSOPHER: Because of one’s mind-set of not wanting to lose, one is unable to
admit one’s mistake, the result being that one ends up choosing the wrong path.
Admitting mistakes, conveying words of apology, and stepping down from power
struggles—none of these things is defeat. The pursuit of superiority is not something
that is carried out through competition with other people.

YOUTH: So when you’re hung up on winning and losing, you lose the ability to make
the right choices?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes. It clouds your judgment, and all you can see is imminent victory
or defeat. Then you turn down the wrong path. It’s only when we take away the
lenses of competition and winning and losing that we can begin to correct and change
ourselves.

Overcoming the Tasks That Face You in Life

YOUTH: Okay, but there’s still a problem. It’s the statement “All problems are
interpersonal relationship problems.” I can see that the feeling of inferiority is an
interpersonal relationship worry, and that it has certain effects on us. And I accept as
logical the idea that life is not a competition. I cannot see other people as comrades,
and somewhere inside me I think of them as enemies. This is clearly the case. But the
thing I find puzzling is, why does Adler place so much importance on interpersonal
relationships? Why does he go so far as to say “all” of them?

PHILOSOPHER: The issue of interpersonal relationships is so important that no matter
how broadly it is addressed, it never seems to suffice. Last time I told you, “What you
are lacking is the courage to be happy.” You remember that, right?

YOUTH: I couldn’t forget it if I tried.

PHILOSOPHER: So why do you see other people as enemies, and why can’t you think
of them as your comrades? It is because you have lost your courage and you are
running away from your “life tasks.”

YOUTH: My life tasks?

PHILOSOPHER: Right. This is a crucial point. In Adlerian psychology, clear objectives
are laid out for human behavior and psychology.

YOUTH: What sort of objectives?

PHILOSOPHER: First, there are two objectives for behavior: to be self-reliant and to live
in harmony with society. Then, the two objectives for the psychology that supports

these behaviors are the consciousness that I have the ability and the consciousness
that people are my comrades.

YOUTH: Just a moment. I’m writing this down . . . There are the following two
objectives for behavior: to be self-reliant and to live in harmony with society. And
there are the following two objectives for the psychology that supports these
behaviors: the consciousness that I have the ability and the consciousness that people
are my comrades . . . Okay, I can see that it is a crucial subject: to be self-reliant as an
individual while living in harmony with people and society. It seems to tie in with
everything we’ve been discussing.

PHILOSOPHER: And these objectives can be achieved by facing what Adler calls “life
tasks.”

YOUTH: What are life tasks?

PHILOSOPHER: Let’s think of the word “life” as tracing back to childhood. During
childhood, we are protected by our parents and can live without needing to work.
But eventually, the time comes when one has to be self-reliant. One cannot be
dependent on one’s parents forever, and one has to be self-reliant mentally, of course,
and self-reliant in a social sense as well, and one has to engage in some form of work—
which is not limited to the narrow definition of working at a company. Furthermore,
in the process of growing up, one begins to have all kinds of friend relationships. Of
course, one may form a love relationship with someone that may even lead to
marriage. If it does, one will start a marital relationship, and if one has children, a
parent-child relationship will begin. Adler made three categories of the interpersonal
relationships that arise out of these processes. He referred to them as “tasks of work,”
“tasks of friendship,” and “tasks of love,” and all together as “life tasks.”

YOUTH: Are these tasks the obligations one has as a member of society? In other
words, things like labor and payment of taxes?

PHILOSOPHER: No, please think of this solely in terms of interpersonal relationships.
That is, the distance and depth in one’s interpersonal relationships. Adler sometimes

used the expression “three social ties” to emphasize the point.

YOUTH: The distance and depth in one’s interpersonal relationships?

PHILOSOPHER: The interpersonal relationships that a single individual has no choice
but to confront when attempting to live as a social being—these are the life tasks.
They are indeed tasks in the sense that one has no choice but to confront them.

YOUTH: Would you be more specific?

PHILOSOPHER: First, let’s look at the tasks of work. Regardless of the kind of work,
there is no work that can be completed all by oneself. For instance, I am usually here
in my study writing a manuscript. Writing is completely autonomous work that I
cannot have someone else do for me. But then there is the presence of the editor and
many others, without whose assistance the work would not be realized, from the
people who handle book design and printing to the distribution and bookstore staff.
Work that can be completed without the cooperation of other people is in principle
unfeasible.

YOUTH: Broadly speaking, I suppose so.

PHILOSOPHER: However, considered from the viewpoint of distance and depth,
interpersonal relationships of work may be said to have the lowest hurdles.
Interpersonal relationships of work have the easy-to-understand common objective
of obtaining good results, so people can cooperate even if they don’t always get along,
and to some extent they have no choice but to cooperate. And as long as a
relationship is formed solely on the basis of work, it will go back to being a
relationship with an outsider when working hours are over or one changes jobs.

YOUTH: Yes, so true.

PHILOSOPHER: And the ones who get tripped up in the interpersonal relationships at
this stage are the people referred to as “NEETs” (a young person not in education,
employment, or training) or “shut-ins” (a person confined indoors).

YOUTH: Huh? Wait a minute! Are you saying that they don’t try to work simply
because they want to avoid the interpersonal relationships that are associated with
work, not that they don’t want to work or that they’re refusing to do manual labor?

PHILOSOPHER: Putting aside the question of whether or not they are conscious of it
themselves, interpersonal relationships are at the core. For example, a man sends out
résumés to find work and gets interviews, only to be rejected by one company after
another. It hurts his pride. He starts to wonder what the purpose in working is if he
has to go through such things. Or he makes a big mistake at work. The company is
going to lose a huge sum of money because of him. Feeling utterly hopeless, as if he’s
plunged into darkness, he can’t bear the thought of coming in to work the following
day. None of these are examples of the work itself becoming disagreeable. What is
disagreeable is being criticized or rebuked by others through the work, getting labeled
as having no ability or being incompetent or unsuited to the work, and hurting the
dignity of one’s irreplaceable self. In other words, everything is an interpersonal
relationship issue.

Red String and Rigid Chains

YOUTH: Well, I’ll save my objections for later. Next, what about the task of
friendship?

PHILOSOPHER: This is a friend relationship in a broader sense, away from work, as
there is none of the compulsion of the workplace. It is a relationship that is difficult
to initiate or deepen.

YOUTH: Ah, you’ve got that right! If there’s a space, like one’s school or workplace,
one can still build a relationship. But then it would be a superficial relationship that is
limited to that space. To even attempt to initiate a personal friend relationship, or
find a friend in a place outside the school or workplace, would be extremely difficult.

PHILOSOPHER: Do you have anyone whom you would call a close friend?

YOUTH: I have a friend. But I’m not sure I’d call him a close friend . . .

PHILOSOPHER: It used to be the same for me. When I was in high school, I did not
even try to make friends and spent my days studying Greek and German, quietly
absorbed in reading philosophy books. My mother was worried about me and went
to consult my homeroom teacher. And my teacher told her, “There’s no need to
worry. He’s a person who doesn’t need friends.” Those words were very encouraging
to my mother, and to me as well.

YOUTH: A person who doesn’t need friends? So in high school you didn’t have a
single friend?

PHILOSOPHER: I did have one friend. He said, “There’s nothing really worth learning
at a university,” and in the end he actually did not enter university. He went into
seclusion up in the mountains for several years, and these days I hear he’s working in
journalism in Southeast Asia. I haven’t seen him in decades, but I have the feeling that
if we got together again, we’d be able to hang out just as we did back then. A lot of
people think that the more friends you have the better, but I’m not so sure about
that. There’s no value at all in the number of friends or acquaintances you have. And
this is a subject that connects with the task of love, but what we should be thinking
about is the distance and depth of the relationship.

YOUTH: Will it be possible for me to make close friends?

PHILOSOPHER: Of course it will. If you change, those around you will change too.
They will have no choice but to change. Adlerian psychology is a psychology for
changing oneself, not a psychology for changing others. Instead of waiting for others
to change or waiting for the situation to change, you take the first step forward
yourself.

YOUTH: Hmm . . .

PHILOSOPHER: The fact is that you came like this to visit me in my room. And, in you,
I have found a young friend.

YOUTH: I am your friend?

PHILOSOPHER: Yes, because you are. The dialogue going on here is not counseling,
and we do not have a work relationship. To me, you are an irreplaceable friend. Don’t
you think so?

YOUTH: I’m your . . . irreplaceable friend? No, I won’t think anything about that right
now. Let’s just keep going. What about the last one, the task of love?

PHILOSOPHER: Think of it as divided into two stages: one, what are known as love
relationships; and two, relationships with family, in particular parent-child
relationships. We have discussed work and friendship, but of the three tasks, most

likely it is the task of love that is the most difficult. When a friend relationship has
turned into love, speech and conduct that were permitted between friends may no
longer be permitted the moment they become lovers. Specifically, that would mean
not permitting socializing with friends of the opposite sex, and in some cases just
speaking on the telephone to someone of the opposite sex is enough to arouse
jealousy. The distance is that close, and the relationship that deep.

YOUTH: Yes, I suppose it can’t be helped.

PHILOSOPHER: But Adler does not accept restricting one’s partner. If the person
seems to be happy, one can frankly celebrate that condition. That is love.
Relationships in which people restrict each other eventually fall apart.

YOUTH: Wait, that’s an argument that can only lead to affirming infidelity. Because if
one’s partner were happily having an affair, you’re saying that one should celebrate
even that.

PHILOSOPHER: No, I am not affirming someone having an affair. Think about it this
way: The kind of relationship that feels somehow oppressive and strained when the
two people are together cannot be called love, even if there is passion. When one can
think, Whenever I am with this person, I can behave very freely, one can really feel
love. One can be in a calm and quite natural state, without having feelings of
inferiority or being beset with the need to flaunt one’s superiority. That is what real
love is like. Restriction, on the other hand, is a manifestation of the mind-set of
attempting to control one’s partner, and also an idea founded on a sense of distrust.
Being in the same space with someone who distrusts you isn’t a natural situation that
one can put up with, is it? As Adler says, “If two people want to live together on good
terms, they must treat each other as equal personalities.”

YOUTH: Okay.

PHILOSOPHER: However, in love relationships and marital relationships, there is the
option of separating. So even a husband and wife who have been together for many
years can separate if continuing the relationship becomes distressful. In a parent-child

relationship, however, in principle this cannot be done. If romantic love is a
relationship connected by red string, then the relationship between parents and
children is bound in rigid chains. And a pair of small scissors is all you have. This is
the difficulty of the parent-child relationship.

YOUTH: So what can one do?

PHILOSOPHER: What I can say at this stage is: You must not run away. No matter how
distressful the relationship, you must not avoid or put off dealing with it. Even if in
the end you’re going to cut it with scissors, first you have to face it. The worst thing
to do is to just stand still with the situation as it is. It is fundamentally impossible for a
person to live life completely alone, and it is only in social contexts that the person
becomes an “individual.” That is why in Adlerian psychology, self-reliance as an
individual and cooperation within society are put forth as overarching objectives.
Then, how can one achieve these objectives? On this point, Adler speaks of
surmounting the three tasks of work, friendship, and love, the tasks of the
interpersonal relationships that a living person has no choice but to confront.

The youth was still struggling to grasp their true meaning.

Don’t Fall for the “Life-Lie”

YOUTH: Ah, it’s getting confusing again. You said that I see other people as enemies
and can’t think of them as comrades because I’m running away from my life tasks.
What was that supposed to mean, anyway?

PHILOSOPHER: Suppose, for instance, that there is a certain Mr. A whom you don’t
like because he has some flaws that are hard to forgive.

YOUTH: Ha-ha, if we’re looking for people I don’t like, there’s no shortage of
candidates.

PHILOSOPHER: But it isn’t that you dislike Mr. A because you can’t forgive his flaws.
You had the goal of taking a dislike to Mr. A beforehand and then started looking for
the flaws to satisfy that goal.

YOUTH: That’s ridiculous! Why would I do that?

PHILOSOPHER: So that you could avoid an interpersonal relationship with Mr. A.

YOUTH: No way, that’s completely out of the question. It’s obvious that the order of
things is backward. He did something I didn’t like, that’s why. If he hadn’t, I’d have
no reason for taking a dislike to him.

PHILOSOPHER: No, you are wrong. It’s easy to see if you think back on the example of
separating from a person whom one has been in a love relationship with. In
relationships between lovers or married couples, there are times when, after a certain
point, one becomes exasperated with everything one’s partner says or does. For
instance, she doesn’t care for the way he eats; his slovenly appearance at home fills her